The Incoherence of Adventist & Watchtower Christology

Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses share the view that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are one and the same:

Michaeal Heb.Mika’el, literally, “who [is] like God?” He is here described as “one of the chief princes [Heb. śarim].” Later He is described as Israel’s particular protector (Dan. 12:1). His identity is not definitely stated here, but a comparison with other scriptures identifies Him as Christ. Jude 9 terms Him “the archangel.” According to 1 Thess. 4:16, the “voice of the archangel” is associated with the resurrection of the saints at the coming of Jesus. Christ declared that the dead will come forth from their graves when they hear the voice of the Son of man (John 5:28). It thus seems clear that Michael is none other than the Lord Jesus Himself .

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002), 860.
From the Watchtower Bible and Tract society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) :
At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon. (Genesis 49:1, 2; Matthew 10:2) Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth.
“Who is Michael the Archangel?” (accessed 4/19/2011).

Yet one wonders, how they can hold such a view in light of the scriptures. For example, in the book of Jude, an argument is made against false teachers and apostates who have infected the church. Jude makes an argument that they blaspheme “glorious ones”  or beings of higher status themselves. To drive the point home he argues that Michael did not dare pass judgment on Satan:

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”(Jud 8-9)

If Michael is actually Jesus Christ the eternal glorious second person of the trinity upon whom all fullness of God dwells (Col. 1:19), then how could it possibly be so that he lacked authority to judge the devil?  It is logically incoherent! This argument only makes sense in light of the orthodox position that Satan is a rebel archangel himself giving him equal status to Michael. Adventist and Watchtower theology has demoted Christ. It is heresy.

Jesus had no qualms against rebuking and judging the devil,

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.(Jn 8:44)

Michael is an angel. Angels are created beings. That they were created is clearly implied in Psalm 148:2, 5: “Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his heavenly hosts.… Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created.” They were in fact created by Christ,

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.(Col 1:16)

Jesus is not Michael. The Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are preaching a different Jesus.

The Mormon DaVinci Code

The recent debate which ensued over my Christian Transhumanism research attracted the attention of the Mormon Transhumanist Association.  Mr. Lincoln Cannon seemed to feel slighted that they only merited a passing mention because I do not consider Mormons to be Christian. It’s disingenuous in the extreme that they identify as such. They are not even remotely Christian. It is clear that they do not follow the New Testament teachings of Jesus, rather the elaborate fictions created by a masonic con man Joseph Smith. I recently read a piece by researcher William H Kennedy who connected Italian dictator Mussolini to Mormons via their common belief to be blood descendants of Jesus.(Apparently, Mussolini was even given the “baptism for the dead” and is a Saint in the LDS Church.)[1] Mussolini aside, this fact about the Mormon bloodline belief I had to verify for myself.

Not only is it true, apparently Smith even claimed to be in the blood line of Jesus. In the book, Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism’s Sacred Bloodline, Vern G. Swanson cites Brigham Young on the matter of Smith’s pure divine heritage:

“That blood which was in him was pure and he had the sole right and lawful power, as he [Joseph Smith] was the legal heir to the blood that has been on the earth and has come down through a pure lineage. The union of various ancestors kept that blood pure.” [2]

LDS apostle, Wilford Woodruff, recorded Joseph Smith claiming that Jesus was married in his journal on July 22, 1883:

“Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married.” [3]

This was not a unique belief but was common within the Mormon leadership as Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated,

“Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified” [4]

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt also held the heretical belief,

“One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus — such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them — namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives” [5]

Smith did not exhibit Christ like character. His arrest record and womanizing are a matter of public record. The book of Mormon has been demonstrated by scholars to be plagiarized from various sources. It’s all available in the historical record and it does not bode well for Latter Day Saints. So are Mormons Christian?  Was Jesus a polygamist? Is the DaVinci Code true?

Not a chance.

When Mormon Transhumanists use these conjured Mormon scriptures to prop up their ambitions to make gods of themselves you can be sure they are deceived. There are a host of other reasons why Mormons are not Bible believing Christians, let me commend to you the film The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon:

[1] William H. Kennedy. The Mussolini Code. (accessed 02/25/20110)

[2] Vern G. Swanson. Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism’s Sacred Bloodline. Google Books Link. 285.

[3] Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883.

[4] Orson Hyde. Journal of Discourses 2:82

[5] Orson Pratt. The Seer, p.159

Three Peas in a Pod: Mormonism, Transhumanism & Pelagianism

I have been challenged here by a Mormon on the topic of “Christian Transhumanism” on which my research is published at Raiders News here .  A foundational problem is that my paper was written to Christian Bible believers. My challenger is neither. While he seems to claim the term “Christian”, there are profound inconsistencies in his reasoning. They are so fundamental to his worldview, that an exchange is not likely to be fruitful. It is my sincere hope that he might recognize his error and turn to Christ but realistically my goal for responding is simply that those who are in Christ might learn from seeing his errors exposed. Perhaps I can put a stone in his shoe? Snippets of his response are in red, my responses are in black. In the first paragraph he reveals:

One aspect of this critique is accurate: Christian transhumanists do tend to be driven by a Pelegian view of sin, which is nonetheless compatible with Christianity. However, the other two aspects of the critique are inaccurate; some biblical anthropologies and educated understandings of Christian theology are quite compatible with Transhumanism.

With his blatant embrace of heresy in the very first paragraph, it’s quite tempting to say “check mate, thesis proven” and leave it at that. The British monk Pelagius (c. 354–415) declared that human effort and merit could bring about salvation without divine grace. Pelagius was vigorously opposed by the church father Augustine and deemed a heretic in 418 at the Council of Carthage.  A proper definition of Pelagianism includes that it is heretical:

Theologically, Pelagianism is the heresy which holds that man can take the initial and fundamental steps towards salvation by his own efforts, apart from Divine grace.[i]

The law of non-contradiction is quite clear that ‘A’ cannot be ‘B’ and ‘non-B’ at the same time and same place.  Thus, my opponents next statement that “some biblical anthropologies are compatible” is rendered incoherent since Pelagianism is an unbiblical anthropology. It can not be biblical and Pelagian. That said, he seems to believe that Mormons are Christians as well. Of course, that is demonstrably false and Pelagianism is a key factor. Mormon theologian Sterling M. McMurrin stated “The theology of Mormonism is completely Pelagian.”[ii] The nineteenth century work of cultic fiction known as the Book of Mormon even went so far as to alter the clear words of scripture:

Bible: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” (Ephesians 2:8)

Book of Mormon: “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (II Nephi 25:23).

Of course, Mormonism is no more Christian than Islam, in fact they are quite similar, see this video here. Furthermore, it is really quite odd that there are Mormon Transhumanists being that most transhumanists are scientifically literate. DNA testing has conclusively proven the book of Mormon is a work of fiction, as there are no traces of Semitic DNA markers in North American Indians. This evidence is so damning that even high level Mormon scholars have left the cult. For an excellent documentary expose’ I highly recommend: DNA vs. the Book of Mormon.

From the beginning, Cris creates a false dichotomy between technology and Christ, claiming the two are incompatible means of conquering death and creating utopia.

There is no false dichotomy presented but a real one.  Quite the contrary, I wrote, “Thus, we have a mandate to engage in some of technologies discussed but with the explicit caveat of when it is exclusively directed toward the healing aspect of medicine.” I love technology. I just don’t agree with making an idol of it or myself. I especially do not agree with using it to supplant Christ’s job description in scripture. The Bible is crystal clear about how, when and by whom death will be conquered:

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. ” (1 Corinthians 15:22–26)

The Mormon transhumanist hopes to do this through man made technology, not God.  However, it is Christ’s destiny to abolish death, not sinful fallen mankind.  He has demonstrated my point for me. It is a biblical dichotomy.

Also from the beginning, Cris establishes a narrow interpretation of Christianity, thereby assuming his own conclusion that Christianity is incompatible with Transhumanism. This is well illustrated by the one sentence of dismissive attention that he gives to the Mormon Transhumanist Association, despite the fact that it is by far the largest group of Transhumanists that identify as Christians.

Identifying themselves as “Christian” is not enough (Matt 7:22). This is the crux of matter. He criticizes me for having a narrow view. This is a charge I am more than happy to accept. If it were up to me it would not be so narrow, but I have submitted to higher authority. For it is not my idea, it was that of my Lord and Savior who said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13)

Of course Mormon transhumanism only merited this one sentence in my paper, “There is a Mormon Transhumanist association, which is hardly surprising in light of their polytheism and apotheosis doctrine.” My paper was a critique of “Christian Transhumanism” not Mormon Transhumanism. Carl Teichrib recently covered that topic. I was addressing alleged Christians. Mormons are not Christians in any sense of the word. Nearly all of his argumentation further proves my point. For example:

Also, there is potential for irony in Cris’ appeal to self-denial and humility: as it can be self-indulgent and arrogant to focus exclusively on improving one’s self, so it can be to refuse and resist improving one’s self. In positive terms, the Bible tells of a time when the dead will be raised and the living changed to spiritual bodies, incorruptible and immortal in comparison to our present bodies. This is enhancement, and it is by definition compatible with biblical ethics.

God does these things, not man! The dead will be raised by God at Christ’s return:

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:51–53)

We will be transformed by God at Christ’s return, not by Lincoln Cannon, Ray Kurzweil or Max More’s materialistic musings.

Cris compounds the problems with his criticism by claiming that transhumanists consider our bodies simple hardware or biological prostheses. The problem with this claim is its irony, given that he presumably holds to the common Christian notion that our bodies are precisely that: prostheses for our souls.

Again he seems woefully ignorant of what orthodox biblical Christianity holds true. I will let scripture make my case once again:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19–20)

Christians do not live for themselves but for Christ. This is why things like posthuman enhancement are opposed to sound biblical doctrine; as followers of Jesus we “present our bodies as a living sacrifice.” (Rom 12:1)

The real substance (pun intended) of Cris’ criticism is that he considers philosophical materialism to be incompatible with Christianity.

Yes, absolutely I do!

In the actual world, apart from his particular brand of Christianity, he’s simply incorrect. Some Christians are philosophical materialists, as are most Transhumanists. Clearly, in practice, the two can be compatible in this area.

This is so profoundly incoherent that I am almost at a loss for words. For meaningful discourse using language to be possible both parties must agree to the law of non-contradiction. If up is down and red is blue, reasoning is no longer possible. Accordingly, if you are a philosophical materialist you are necessarily an atheist. A typical philosophical dictionary defines it as a:

Belief that only physical things truly exist. Materialists claim (or promise) to explain every apparent instance of a mental phenomenon as a feature of some physical object. Prominent materialists in Western thought include the classical atomists, Hobbes, and La Mettrie.[iii]

God is an immaterial being. If you are a philosophical materialist then you do not believe in God. God is spirit (Num. 16:22; 2 Cor. 3:17 Heb. 12:9). God is not a man (Num 23:19). He is not composed of matter. As his attributes like omnipresence imply, he is immaterial or nonphysical. This is very clearly stated by Jesus in John 4:24, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth,” and is also implied in the many references to his invisibility (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15–16).[iv] Also Jesus reassures the apostles that he is not immaterial after the resurrection in Luke 24:39 by telling them,

See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (Luke 24:39)

So we have Jesus explicitly teaching God is a spirit and also that spirits do not have flesh and bones. Thus anyone who believes God is material does not follow Jesus and is necessarily not a Christian. Christians believe Jesus.

No mere theist or even a self respecting deist, let alone Christian, is a philosophical materialist. That is an absurdity on the order of a square circle or a married bachelor. It gives me a headache imagining the massive level of cognitive dissonance that must result from such an internally contradictory worldview. Perhaps he will defend “Christian Atheism” in his next post?  In the end, heretical beliefs such as Pelagianism always lead to larger errors like Mormonism or “Christian Transhumanism.” They are man centered and self-aggrandizing as opposed to Christ centered and God glorifying.  It all leads back to the original lie in the garden,

“The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” ” (Genesis 3:4–5)

[i] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1257.

[ii],Sterling M. McMurrin. The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion 1965.

[iii] “Materialism” in Philosophical Dictionary (accessed 2/20/20011)

[iv]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1998), 294.

Blogging With Kenny

Ken Klein sent me a reply today asking me to apologize for my video commentary to his heretical teaching on original sin. The issue is that Ken denies the orthodox biblical doctrine of original sin, as the clips in the video evidence. He opposes the clear teaching of the Apostle Paul and I called him on it. Now he is threatening to sick his attorney’s on me.  Ken’s posts are indented in block quotes, my responses are marked Logos:


****Due the length of Ken’s post and the fact that he basically defends his use of elohim for a plurality of angelic beings, something I never disputed, it is linked here.  ****

I am impressed to say for the sake of a laying a foundation:  Jesus is my Lord and Savior.  Jesus Christ is the common denominator that gives union to all believers even through their are differences of view points.  Yes, I believe in the Trinity and I do embrace an insight on that subject.

It is unfortunate that you have not done due diligence on who I am before trying to assassinate my character.  I would ask you to take down the video because it violates copyright laws, youtube policies, and includes slanderous accusations as to my motives and character.

I forgive you.



Sorry but this does not address the issue that sin entered the world through Adam, through one man not because we are fallen angels working off past rebellion. Paul makes that crystal clear.  You don’t have a biblical leg to stand on.



Expected a more thoughtful response from someone who calls themselves Logos.



I was brief, I am really busy at the seminary this week. I don’t see how any of this addresses the real issue. I made it clear in the video:  I am familiar with the Divine Council concept and have studied the work of Dr Michael Heiser, so the idea of little ‘g’ gods is nothing new. That was never my problem with your theology. It’s that you blatanly mocked the doctrine of original sin Ken.


According to Genesis 1–2, Adam and Eve were created with complete innocence. They had no evil in their natures or their environment. They “were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25 nasb), and they did not yet know “good and evil” (3:5). In short, they were not only guiltless of any sin but also innocent of sin.

Further, the very temptation to “be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5) implies they did not know evil before they fell. Indeed, when they ate the forbidden fruit, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves” (3:7). According to the New Testament, by disobedience Adam and Eve became sinful (Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:14) and brought condemnation on themselves and their posterity: “The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (Rom. 5:18).3 Before this, they were flawless.

Source: Geisler, Norman L.: Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation. Minneapolis, MN : Bethany House Publishers, 2004, S. 17

In your video it wasn’t Adam’s sin. No, you said that wasn’t fair of God. Your words Ken, “It’s not fair!”  So you created this new revelation that it was our sin as as pre-incarnate angels? You are directly contradicting the Apostle Paul’s teaching.  That’s what I was responding to Ken, it was clear enough. You do not have the authority to “correct” Paul because you don’t think it’s fair, Ken.

As far as taking down the video look into : Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.



Consider the very scripture you brought up to support your interpretive doctrine of “Original Sin”.  If sin had to enter through Adam, then sin had to already be in existence, and by definition cannot be original.  For something that doesn’t exist cannot enter.

“By the way it was Eve that sinned according to Timothy.  So how did sin enter through Adam?”

We are not mocking the terrible nature of sin, but rather how the current and traditional Christian doctrine of sin is such a feeble representation of the magnitude of sin.  And the way it is represented, makes God out to look like a cruel rather than loving God.

His very nature is maligned by the poorly interpreted doctrine that you hold to.


P.S. I’m very aware of “fair usage laws” as a film producer and you aren’t in alignment with those laws.  If you still refuse to take it down then you will hear from my attorney.


This was the  point where I decided to take it public. I will stand on the Fair Use provision. Ken is threatening me with his attorney. I am clearly using clips of his video for criticism and commentary which is the very reason the fair use provision was enacted. You tube isn’t too sympathetic about false DMCA’s being filed.  But what is really important is exposing Ken’s false teaching and bad theology.


Ken: Consider the very scripture you brought up to support your interpretive doctrine of “Original Sin”.  If sin had to enter through Adam, then sin had to already be in existence, and by definition cannot be original.  For something that doesn’t exist cannot enter.



This is really your argument? Sin is a metaphysical bogeyman that pre-existed Adam. Seriously? Sin means disobedience to God’s standard. It was original to humanity, Adam being the first human. Due to that, today we have an inherited sin nature but as Dr Geisler pointed out in the entry above there was a state of innocence in the original creation.  This is not an interpretative matter Ken. You teach that all of humanity sinned as pre-incarnate angels and we are here on earth working off our error by our own righteous choice. That is wrong on many levels. It qualifies as heresy and it is the duty of apologists to refute such error. The Bible explicitly says that one transgression led to the condemnation for all men.

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. ” (Romans 5:18–19, ESV)

How do you explain this scripture Ken?

Ken: “By the way it was Eve that sinned according to Timothy.  So how did sin enter through Adam?”

According to Timothy? Sorry Ken but the Apostle Paul (the same guy that wrote “by one man’s disobedience”) wrote 1st Timothy.  I suppose you are referring to “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ” (1 Timothy 2:13–14, ESV) Paul’s point here is that Eve was deceived by the Serpent. Adam was not deceived, he knew better. Adam willfully chose to disobey. A man is the spiritual leader of his household by God’s design and when God inquired (Gen 3:9) he called Adam’s name. That’s the distinction Paul was making. This is really basic biblical theology Ken. You should know better.

Ken: We are not mocking the terrible nature of sin, but rather how the current and traditional Christian doctrine of sin is such a feeble representation of the magnitude of sin.  And the way it is represented, makes God out to look like a cruel rather than loving God.

His very nature is maligned by the poorly interpreted doctrine that you hold to.

It’s not just the “current and traditional” doctrine. It’s the apostolic teaching. It’s at the core of Biblical Christianity. It’s a non negotiable. Ken, I believe God’s revealed truth in holy scripture, “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,” it is not an interpretive matter. You either believe the Bible or you do not. It’s a matter of submission to Biblical authority. You said that you don’t think it was fair that you inherited Adam’s sin. Ken you are the one maligning God’s character with, “It’s not fair”.  Actually, it’s really not fair that Jesus died for me. So I am glad it’s not fair. If it was really fair, I would go to hell.  No Ken, I didn’t choose to work off my pre-incarnate angelic transgressions. God was merciful. Ken you simply reject the clear teaching of scripture and have manufactured a new revelation to “correct” it. It’s nothing new. So did Joseph Smith, Alice Bailey, Mary Baker Eddy, David Koresh and Muhammad.  That’s what cults do Ken.

Whose Dominion?

The church of Jesus Christ is the most important institution in the world. The assembly of the redeemed, the company of the saints, the children of God are more significant in world history than any other group, organization, or nation. The United States of America compares to the church of Jesus Christ like a speck of dust compares to the sun. The drama of international relations compares to the mission of the church like a kindergarten riddle compares to Hamlet or King Lear. And all pomp of May Day in Red Square and the pageantry of New Year’s in Pasadena fade into a formless grey against the splendor of the bride of Christ. [i] – John Piper:  The Cosmic Church

Amen! Indeed the Church will outlive the world system and all of it’s corruption. I mean the Church as an organism not an organization. As the bride of Christ, the redeemed body of believers, not a building, denomination or institution. But I am concerned because the Church, while in the world but is not supposed to be of the world . I believe we have a serious problem in the Church. Let me be clear that I affirm that it is not only appropriate to pray for our country and leaders it is a biblical mandate (1 Timothy 2:1-2). However, politics should never supersede the welfare of the Church. Enter May Day 2010 in Washington, D.C. where mainstream evangelicalism meets dominionism.

I am deeply troubled that respected evangelical leaders like Dr. James Dobson and Tim Wildmon are (perhaps unwittingly) associating with heretical dominionists for political expediency. Here is a apt encapsulation of the problem at Herescope. I also suggest listening to Derek and Sharon Gilbert’s take on it at PID Radio. Sharon brilliantly observed the parallel between the seven mountains of influence in dominionist theology and the seven hills on which the whore of Babylon sits in Revelation 17:9. It may not be hyperbole, the Bible warns of an end time politicized counterfeit religion. The May Day event included the New Apostolic Reformation which is the freshly revamped Latter Rain cult of Todd Bently infamy right alongside of main stream evangelicals.[ii] When high profile evangelical leaders  rubber stamp events associated with cults and rub shoulders with dominionists aren’t they lending credibility to a false socio-political gospel?

If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. ” (John 15:19) We are not supposed to reclaim the world through political influence.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

There will be a glorious day when Christ comes to institute the Millennial kingdom. But it is His alone to take back, not ours. We are to preach the gospel, make disciples and watch for his return. Satan took dominion from Adam when he sinned and only Jesus can take it back. Are you so bold to usurp Jesus’ job description? When Satan took Jesus up on the mountain to tempt him he offered him the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worship. Satan said “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” (Luke 4:6–7, ESV) Notice that it is Satan who gives political authority to whom he wills.  Jesus didn’t deny that Satan indeed had that authority.  In fact, it would not have been a temptation for Jesus otherwise. Instead Jesus refused to worship him. In other words, Jesus refused to make an idol out of political power.  Let us be imitators of Jesus.

[i]Piper,John. 05/03/2010).

[ii]Discernment Research Group. (accessed 05/03/2010).

Also see: